Here is the thing that makes me unable to accept the idea of partial points: it makes actually 0 sense.

How is doing damage actually worth anything in this game? The only point of damage that matters literally at all is the last one. If you have a ship at 1 health, it shoots 100% as effectively as a ship at 200 health, barring specific criticals that have no place in this discussion.

Partial points is a bad idea because it tells an inaccurate picture of what has happened. Yes, you can assume the 1 health falcon would have died in one more round, but maybe it would have tabled the opponent. It is still fully functional, it can still shoot, evade, and move just as much as always.

Maybe I've just played too much magic, but I consider the hp of my ships a resource to use freely, and if I let damage through to conserve my focus for an attack, suddenly I've been punished for this by losing points, even if the focus I saved now lets me table them on the return fire?

No solution will keep the people who game this system from gaming it, but partial points removes an interesting and powerful resource from the game and I'm not sure I have seen a good argument for it yet from anyone at all.

Here is the thing that makes me unable to accept the idea of partial points: it makes actually 0 sense.

How is doing damage actually worth anything in this game? The only point of damage that matters literally at all is the last one. If you have a ship at 1 health, it shoots 100% as effectively as a ship at 200 health, barring specific criticals that have no place in this discussion.

Partial points is a bad idea because it tells an inaccurate picture of what has happened. Yes, you can assume the 1 health falcon would have died in one more round, but maybe it would have tabled the opponent. It is still fully functional, it can still shoot, evade, and move just as much as always.

Maybe I've just played too much magic, but I consider the hp of my ships a resource to use freely, and if I let damage through to conserve my focus for an attack, suddenly I've been punished for this by losing points, even if the focus I saved now lets me table them on the return fire?

No solution will keep the people who game this system from gaming it, but partial points removes an interesting and powerful resource from the game and I'm not sure I have seen a good argument for it yet from anyone at all.

I don't play in magic tournaments. I have some questions, is magic timed?

As for letting damage through. If you want to discuss how it does make sense in the grand scheme of things. War is about resources and by letting your ship get damaged, if you want to fight again it requires resources to rebuild it.

However, this is not about that. It's really about a meta that people have latched onto. It's obvious that using a ship with more hit points is better in a timed game. Because it forces the other player to have to attack it. Or they will not get points for it. It can also run away and avoid the damage. This is not what the game is mean to be, but what it has become. It's about how to make ship more survivable in a 60 minute window, then to actually try an win the game.

In some way you could claim that the turret is the problem. Because these big ship unless dealt with early in the game, have some much power in the end game you cannot bring them down in the time allowed. Because they can turn tail and run and still keep on shooting.

Anyway, this is pointless. Unless FFG does something. There is really no point to discuss this any futher. People don't want to implement it. (I can't understand why, but it's obvious by all the responses)

Perhaps tournament games should be up to 2 hours and you play less games, let's she what types of squads people would bring with that change.

Here is the thing that makes me unable to accept the idea of partial points: it makes actually 0 sense.

How is doing damage actually worth anything in this game? The only point of damage that matters literally at all is the last one. If you have a ship at 1 health, it shoots 100% as effectively as a ship at 200 health, barring specific criticals that have no place in this discussion.

Partial points is a bad idea because it tells an inaccurate picture of what has happened. Yes, you can assume the 1 health falcon would have died in one more round, but maybe it would have tabled the opponent. It is still fully functional, it can still shoot, evade, and move just as much as always.

Maybe I've just played too much magic, but I consider the hp of my ships a resource to use freely, and if I let damage through to conserve my focus for an attack, suddenly I've been punished for this by losing points, even if the focus I saved now lets me table them on the return fire?

No solution will keep the people who game this system from gaming it, but partial points removes an interesting and powerful resource from the game and I'm not sure I have seen a good argument for it yet from anyone at all.

Partial points is a more accurate representation of which person performed better, which is what we try to measure in competitive play. If you saved your focus for offense, taking some damage and then tabling your opponent, your opponent still did something to you that should be recorded as a gain towards victory for their side. If you were instead able to avoid that damage, and STILL table your opponent (perhaps later), isn't it the case that you probably played more skillfully?

Or let's make it more obvious - You table me taking 0 points of damage on your list vs. you table Ted with a 1 health left on all your ships. Who did better? In your universe, Ted and I performed equally well, even though I accomplished nothing. That seems totally incorrect to me if we are trying to measure performance and not fluff.

In a real world analogy - A boxer KOs his opponent after taking a beating for 14 rounds. In the rematch, the boxer KOs his opponent without his opponent even landing a punch. In which match did the boxer perform better?

Here is the thing that makes me unable to accept the idea of partial points: it makes actually 0 sense.

How is doing damage actually worth anything in this game? The only point of damage that matters literally at all is the last one. If you have a ship at 1 health, it shoots 100% as effectively as a ship at 200 health, barring specific criticals that have no place in this discussion.

Partial points is a bad idea because it tells an inaccurate picture of what has happened. Yes, you can assume the 1 health falcon would have died in one more round, but maybe it would have tabled the opponent. It is still fully functional, it can still shoot, evade, and move just as much as always.

Maybe I've just played too much magic, but I consider the hp of my ships a resource to use freely, and if I let damage through to conserve my focus for an attack, suddenly I've been punished for this by losing points, even if the focus I saved now lets me table them on the return fire?

No solution will keep the people who game this system from gaming it, but partial points removes an interesting and powerful resource from the game and I'm not sure I have seen a good argument for it yet from anyone at all.

Partial points is a more accurate representation of which person performed better, which is what we try to measure in competitive play. If you saved your focus for offense, taking some damage and then tabling your opponent, your opponent still did something to you that should be recorded as a gain towards victory for their side. If you were instead able to avoid that damage, and STILL table your opponent (perhaps later), isn't it the case that you probably played more skillfully?

Or let's make it more obvious - You table me taking 0 points of damage on your list vs. you table Ted with a 1 health left on all your ships. Who did better? In your universe, Ted and I performed equally well, even though I accomplished nothing. That seems totally incorrect to me if we are trying to measure performance and not fluff.

In a real world analogy - A boxer KOs his opponent after taking a beating for 14 rounds. In the rematch, the boxer KOs his opponent without his opponent even landing a punch. In which match did the boxer perform better?

I confirm that you and Ted performed equally. Neither of you destroyed a ship, hence you both accomplished 0% of your mission to destroy my ship. If you beat me and I do 0 damage to you, and you beat Ted and take 0 damage from him but 3 asteroid damage, did Ted perform better than I did? If I do 0 damage but you use Vader 3 times did I do better than the guy you used Vader on twice?

@eagletsi111 you only have 50 minutes per round of magic to complete a best of 3 in.

Interesting topic, I really dont think partial points will help as much as people think they will though. It also takes away from the small ship player that maneuvers his damaged ships out of the line of fire.

PS for the love of lemons, when quoting delete the sequential posts. You dont need to nestle fifteen posts for a quote. Thats just being lazy.

Interesting topic, I really dont think partial points will help as much as people think they will though. It also takes away from the small ship player that maneuvers his damaged ships out of the line of fire.

PS for the love of lemons, when quoting delete the sequential posts. You dont need to nestle fifteen posts for a quote. Thats just being lazy.

But my phone makes it so much work to delete that much text and I'm lazy...

Here is the thing that makes me unable to accept the idea of partial points: it makes actually 0 sense.

How is doing damage actually worth anything in this game? The only point of damage that matters literally at all is the last one. If you have a ship at 1 health, it shoots 100% as effectively as a ship at 200 health, barring specific criticals that have no place in this discussion.

Partial points is a bad idea because it tells an inaccurate picture of what has happened. Yes, you can assume the 1 health falcon would have died in one more round, but maybe it would have tabled the opponent. It is still fully functional, it can still shoot, evade, and move just as much as always.

Maybe I've just played too much magic, but I consider the hp of my ships a resource to use freely, and if I let damage through to conserve my focus for an attack, suddenly I've been punished for this by losing points, even if the focus I saved now lets me table them on the return fire?

No solution will keep the people who game this system from gaming it, but partial points removes an interesting and powerful resource from the game and I'm not sure I have seen a good argument for it yet from anyone at all.

Partial points is a more accurate representation of which person performed better, which is what we try to measure in competitive play. If you saved your focus for offense, taking some damage and then tabling your opponent, your opponent still did something to you that should be recorded as a gain towards victory for their side. If you were instead able to avoid that damage, and STILL table your opponent (perhaps later), isn't it the case that you probably played more skillfully?

Or let's make it more obvious - You table me taking 0 points of damage on your list vs. you table Ted with a 1 health left on all your ships. Who did better? In your universe, Ted and I performed equally well, even though I accomplished nothing. That seems totally incorrect to me if we are trying to measure performance and not fluff.

In a real world analogy - A boxer KOs his opponent after taking a beating for 14 rounds. In the rematch, the boxer KOs his opponent without his opponent even landing a punch. In which match did the boxer perform better?

I confirm that you and Ted performed equally. Neither of you destroyed a ship, hence you both accomplished 0% of your mission to destroy my ship. If you beat me and I do 0 damage to you, and you beat Ted and take 0 damage from him but 3 asteroid damage, did Ted perform better than I did? If I do 0 damage but you use Vader 3 times did I do better than the guy you used Vader on twice?

@eagletsi111 you only have 50 minutes per round of magic to complete a best of 3 in.

I think you are attempting to appeal to a lot of edge cases about the big picture to make your point, and you are drawing an arbitrary distinction at "destroying" a ship.

In your first example, remember that the difference in MOV between the two scenarios would be a few points under any of the systems I've seen suggested. I can't directly answer your question because in both of the scenarios you presented, the difference is narrow enough it is hard to say. It is possible that you both performed equally well. It is also possible Ted may have been positioned better forcing me into asteroids. And you may have given me harder shots, forcing me to use Vader more. A very minor reflection of that by a few points of MOV at least represents those possibilities, while lack of partial scoring does not.

If you and I had a one on one ship battle with two Decimators and I ended the game with no damage and you ended the game with 15, it seems preposterous to me to say we tied.

Back to the arbitrary line with destroying a ship. The goal of the game is not to destroy my ship. The goal is to destroy all of your opponents ships. By your logic and using a different arbitrary line (the one that is the actual goal of the game), you could say if you don't destroy all of my ships, you have not accomplished your goal of destroying all of my ships. So if I have a 1 health TIE remaining, and you have your entire undamaged list, we tie.

PS for the love of lemons, when quoting delete the sequential posts. You dont need to nestle fifteen posts for a quote. Thats just being lazy.

I'll apologize. I know I do that from time to time. A side effect of smart phones. It is surprisingly difficult to delete a specific large portion of an even larger block of text when only a tiny fraction of it is visible and you are doing it with finicky touch controls.

It is laziness, but it isn't 10 seconds worth of laziness. It is otten several minutes worth of trouble to do so on a phone, sometimes only to find you've messed up the quote nesting and need to re-edit.

I often find perspectives like the ones often represented in the MOV discussions to be similar to problems at work. Engineering types (of which I am one) too often lock into a position that if it is not near perfect, it is not worth doing, and we should keep looking until it is near perfect.

Solutions have been presented that are inarguably closer to partial scoring in many of these threads, often only to get shot down by the supporters of partial points!

I agree that this solution in particular isn't enough, but it seems more and more like most partial points supporters will only be happy if the get a linear reduction in points that goes from total ship points to zero for each and every damage done.

This will never happen.

I suggest: 2 points per damage done. Nope. Not perfect. It is a little harder on things like shuttles than it is on things like Falcons still, and there is some math. But you can't argue it isn't better than the current system. It requires no prep, no division, no decimals or rounding - basically being able to count and multiply by 2. In most cases, it still gives a reward for actually killing the ship, and I think that needs to exist. They could put that in the rules in 10 minutes and we'd be a lot better off while in the meantime everyone keeps arguing over the perfect solution.

That's still an extremely inaccurate measurement though. I think you just have to make a really good tournament scoring sheet for partial points (smartphones have calculators!), and tournament software that supports it would help, but is not needed. Strictly speaking the TO doesn't need to do anything differently, the players still report their match MoV.

I love what you do MJ, and I appreciate the intelligent discourse you bring to the forums, but you are illustrating my point about a resistance to accepting anything less than your ideal model, even if a less perfect model has tremendous benefit for ease of implementation and execution.

The particular suggestion here is is not merely less than ideal, it extremely inaccurate for many common scenarios, and would be only marginally better than the current system we have now.

If FFG changes anything at all, they are unlikely to keep re-visiting it multiple times. There is a large amount of hysteresis in their balance fixes, once something is done they don't instantly go back and change it again. It may take another year or more, if ever, to finally correct it again. So it would be a mistake to change the system into another form that's still almost as bad as the one we have now.

I think you are attempting to appeal to a lot of edge cases about the big picture to make your point, and you are drawing an arbitrary distinction at "destroying" a ship.

In your first example, remember that the difference in MOV between the two scenarios would be a few points under any of the systems I've seen suggested. I can't directly answer your question because in both of the scenarios you presented, the difference is narrow enough it is hard to say. It is possible that you both performed equally well. It is also possible Ted may have been positioned better forcing me into asteroids. And you may have given me harder shots, forcing me to use Vader more. A very minor reflection of that by a few points of MOV at least represents those possibilities, while lack of partial scoring does not.

If you and I had a one on one ship battle with two Decimators and I ended the game with no damage and you ended the game with 15, it seems preposterous to me to say we tied.

Back to the arbitrary line with destroying a ship. The goal of the game is not to destroy my ship. The goal is to destroy all of your opponents ships. By your logic and using a different arbitrary line (the one that is the actual goal of the game), you could say if you don't destroy all of my ships, you have not accomplished your goal of destroying all of my ships. So if I have a 1 health TIE remaining, and you have your entire undamaged list, we tie.

I could agree to that as well, neither of us destroyed the entire enemy force, so yes we tied.

The arbitration lines are pretty key, but if you don't want to keep it at win lose or draw in the purest sense like your last example (which I would also be okay with, since it's a pure representation of who accomplished the goal of the game, in that case, nobody) then we must break the task of destroying your opponent's fleet into pieces. The simplest and largest piece is destroying ships one by one, such as currently implemented. The next sized piece is the problem. You can easily say 'I removed 12/100 points from the table' you cannot go a step further easily.

The argument that people always bring is that if you deal 15 damage to a decimator, you should get points for that, but that is a fair argument only if you also get points for the other components that go into destroying a ship. When we try to break 'destroying a ship' into parts, we must look at what that entails. Yes it entails damage. It also entails not getting destroyed by for example dodging arcs. should I get points for each arc I dodge? Do I get points for each action or shot I deny my opponent by blocking? Assuming dealing damage is next step down from destroying a ship is erroneous since there are actually just a bunch of factors that go into it.

Also, partial points will 100% favor lists with more health. At 36 hp, each hit on bbbbz is worth ~2.8 damage, while 3 interceptors at 9 hp makes each hit worth ~11 points. Trading 6 total health down to 1 hull each on the interceptors while killing 2 b's and the z still puts the interceptor player down on points by ~10, even though the 3 interceptors can probably arc dodge well enough to kill the remaining b wings. That doesn't make any sense at all on how the game went.

But my phone makes it so much work to delete that much text and I'm lazy...

I'll apologize. I know I do that from time to time. A side effect of smart phones. It is surprisingly difficult to delete a specific large portion of an even larger block of text when only a tiny fraction of it is visible and you are doing it with finicky touch controls.

It is laziness, but it isn't 10 seconds worth of laziness. It is otten several minutes worth of trouble to do so on a phone, sometimes only to find you've messed up the quote nesting and need to re-edit.

Also, partial points will 100% favor lists with more health. At 36 hp, each hit on bbbbz is worth ~2.8 damage, while 3 interceptors at 9 hp makes each hit worth ~11 points. Trading 6 total health down to 1 hull each on the interceptors while killing 2 b's and the z still puts the interceptor player down on points by ~10, even though the 3 interceptors can probably arc dodge well enough to kill the remaining b wings. That doesn't make any sense at all on how the game went.

That is a common misconception and is incorrect. Mathematically everything will suddenly be on a level playing field, the only differences are:

• variance in health
• scoring extra for shooting a glass cannon
• scoring extra for shooting a high PS ship
• scoring extra for shooting a highly upgraded ship

All of the above are already tactical considerations in an untimed game, so all it does is better reflect reality. If games were untimed, then this would be far less of an issue, although the MoV would still favor Fat Ships by 20-30 points per match vs a stereotypical swarm.

But my phone makes it so much work to delete that much text and I'm lazy...

I'll apologize. I know I do that from time to time. A side effect of smart phones. It is surprisingly difficult to delete a specific large portion of an even larger block of text when only a tiny fraction of it is visible and you are doing it with finicky touch controls.

It is laziness, but it isn't 10 seconds worth of laziness. It is otten several minutes worth of trouble to do so on a phone, sometimes only to find you've messed up the quote nesting and need to re-edit.

Oh I know it is hard. Been doing so a lot lately from my own phone, like this post. Still only takes a few seconds to highlight and delete though.

I'm totally willing to chalk it up to operator error. I find I'll select a large section. I'll try to move the bar to select more and it semi-randomly drops the selection or selects something else, or it is a couple spaces off from where it should be and in trying to correct it I mess up the selection, etc.

Regardless, different operator, different results. It rarely takes me just a few seconds.

When we try to break 'destroying a ship' into parts, we must look at what that entails. Yes it entails damage. It also entails not getting destroyed by for example dodging arcs. should I get points for each arc I dodge? Do I get points for each action or shot I deny my opponent by blocking? Assuming dealing damage is next step down from destroying a ship is erroneous since there are actually just a bunch of factors that go into it.

In reality, partial points does a pretty good job of reflecting these things without a need for adding any rewards. If you dodge arcs, you take less shots, therefore less damage and your MOV is better. If you block an opponent, you cause him to lose an action, potentially not have a shot, lowering or eliminating expected damage. Again, this results in less damage and a better MOV. I'll have more of my starting points remaining to compare against my opponent.

Full scoring actually does a worse job of reflecting these things, so it is odd to point it out as an example of something that is a weakness of partial scoring.

That is a common misconception and is incorrect. Mathematically everything will suddenly be on a level playing field, the only differences are:

• variance in health
• scoring extra for shooting a glass cannon
• scoring extra for shooting a high PS ship
• scoring extra for shooting a highly upgraded ship

All of the above are already tactical considerations in an untimed game, so all it does is better reflect reality. If games were untimed, then this would be far less of an issue, although the MoV would still favor Fat Ships by 20-30 points per match vs a stereotypical swarm.

Not quite sure how thats a misconception, I've finished games with all my tie ints up but smoking and hurting bad against a 4BZ. I won on a timed match. So I don't get rewarded for keeping them alive, my opponent gets value for harming my ships? At that point no one will go 100-0 then. I don't find this on a level playing field at all.

That is a common misconception and is incorrect. Mathematically everything will suddenly be on a level playing field, the only differences are:

• variance in health
• scoring extra for shooting a glass cannon
• scoring extra for shooting a high PS ship
• scoring extra for shooting a highly upgraded ship

All of the above are already tactical considerations in an untimed game, so all it does is better reflect reality. If games were untimed, then this would be far less of an issue, although the MoV would still favor Fat Ships by 20-30 points per match vs a stereotypical swarm.

Not quite sure how thats a misconception, I've finished games with all my tie ints up but smoking and hurting bad against a 4BZ. I won on a timed match. So I don't get rewarded for keeping them alive, my opponent gets value for harming my ships? At that point no one will go 100-0 then. I don't find this on a level playing field at all.

What was the final ending hit points for all the ships on both sides, and what was your squad?

Edit. P.S. Yes, nobody will go 100-0. But it's all a relative measurement so that's OK.

The particular suggestion here is is not merely less than ideal, it extremely inaccurate for many common scenarios, and would be only marginally better than the current system we have now.

I'll acknowledge that clearly low-HP, high point ships (Whisper, Fel) are in a more favorable position under my proposal. That may be ok, given that the probability that these types of ships can take down multiple lesser ships is pretty high. It also may not, I can't say.

Whether it is marginal or not, we'll chalk that up to a difference of opinion. I think it falls in the middle of nothing and everything, you think it is toward the nothing end. We aren't going to reach agreement on that. What I will say is that I would take a small difference that could happen over a big difference that will never happen any day of the week.

The SWLCG tie breakers are a pain in the ass. Why anyone would advocate adding it to this game, in a way that would be used much, much more often boggles my mind.

Keep it simple.

It was a 100-0 I blew him up in the time, 70 minute round (only went to 50ish). There are to many corner cases this would cause. What happens when there is another player that goes 4-0 in swiss (saying no cut, choose the amount of rounds you want), he lost ships in his game but ends up with more MoV than me who didn't lose a single "glass cannon" but merely severely damaged ones? He should be awarded 1st because of this?

The best solution for MoV is to NOT use it.

SoS is still the preferred tournament tie breaker for lots of other games, why do we need to use some count that manipulates how players play the game and build their squads?

The best solution for MoV is to NOT use it.

SoS is still the preferred tournament tie breaker for lots of other games, why do we need to use some count that manipulates how players play the game and build their squads?

While I prefer SOS, most here don't.

I don't think adjusting partial points makes sense, there's too many different variables. I also don't like partial points for thematic reasons. The only thing I can think of that makes a huge difference in undestroyed ships, but might make a thematic difference in MOV points would be points for Crits.

Think of it: a full new tournament damage deck, sold separately, given away in tournament kits, etc... Some crits are worth up to 5 points. If the games ends and a blinded pilot is flipped up, I could see getting a few points for that. Or a direct hit. Or a weapon malfunction.

And it could be printed on each damage (crit) card. Bigger ships can take more crits, they're harder to get anyway. Crits functionally may change a ship, so why couldn't you do a little better with scoring in this respect?

If FFG changes anything at all, they are unlikely to keep re-visiting it multiple times. There is a large amount of hysteresis in their balance fixes, once something is done they don't instantly go back and change it again. It may take another year or more, if ever, to finally correct it again. So it would be a mistake to change the system into another form that's still almost as bad as the one we have now.

This is a fair point. Certainly they haven't done so, and there is a long tail on their changes as things settle into the new norm. The only response is that I think it much more likely they do nothing than incorporate something that meets your desires, so if FFG is going to make us wait on the ideal system, what you want to happen is still going to be a long long way off..

The best solution for MoV is to NOT use it.

SoS is still the preferred tournament tie breaker for lots of other games, why do we need to use some count that manipulates how players play the game and build their squads?

One thing that MOV handles very well, that SOS does not, is tournament drops. I would rather play under a system where I don't have any reason to stay (other than fun) once I am mathematically eliminated. If I'm 1-3 and totally out of it, my opponents shouldn't be penalized because I leave, and I don't want to feel like I have to stay if I'm not having fun any longer.

The particular suggestion here is is not merely less than ideal, it extremely inaccurate for many common scenarios, and would be only marginally better than the current system we have now.

I'll acknowledge that clearly low-HP, high point ships (Whisper, Fel) are in a more favorable position under my proposal. That may be ok, given that the probability that these types of ships can take down multiple lesser ships is pretty high. It also may not, I can't say.

Whether it is marginal or not, we'll chalk that up to a difference of opinion. I think it falls in the middle of nothing and everything, you think it is toward the nothing end. We aren't going to reach agreement on that. What I will say is that I would take a small difference that could happen over a big difference that will never happen any day of the week.

It's easily quantifiable. For the stereotypical example of a 64 point 1HP Fat Han:

• Current system: 0 points
• two points per damage inflicted: 24 points
• half points: 32 points
• "easy to compute" partial points: 48 points
• accurate partial points: 59 points

I have discussed at length how I think that even half points is insufficient to address the issue. Two points per damage caused does even less to mitigate the problem in the most common scenarios.

It was a 100-0 I blew him up in the time, 70 minute round (only went to 50ish). There are to many corner cases this would cause. What happens when there is another player that goes 4-0 in swiss (saying no cut, choose the amount of rounds you want), he lost ships in his game but ends up with more MoV than me who didn't lose a single "glass cannon" but merely severely damaged ones? He should be awarded 1st because of this?

Oh, ok. So MoV had zero bearing on the victory condition of the game. With partial points you probably would have won something like 100-60. I'm primarily worried about actual win/loss conditions getting distorted because of MoV. That has a huge impact on the game.